How Star Trek artists imagined the iPad… 23 years ago

There are a lot of similarities between Apple's iPad and the mobile computing …

One interesting characteristic of Star Trek: The Next Generation—one that separated it from the original series and most of the early films—was its widespread use of smooth, flat, touch-based control panels throughout the Enterprise-D. This touch interface was also used for numerous portable devices known as PADDs, or Personal Access Display Devices. These mobile computing terminals bear a striking resemblance to Apple's iPad—a mobile computing device largely defined by its smooth, flat touchscreen interface.

To understand the thinking that led to the design of the Star Trek PADD, we spoke to some of the people involved in production of ST:TNG (as well as other Star Trek TV series and films), including Michael Okuda, Denise Okuda, and Doug Drexler. All three were involved in various aspects of production art for Star Trek properties, including graphic design, set design, prop design, visual effects, art direction, and more. We also discussed their impressions of the iPad and how eerily similar it is to their vision of 24th century technology, how science fiction often influences technology, and what they believe is the future of human-machine interaction.

From "electronic clipboard" to PADD

The Star Trek films, beginning with 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture, had sizable budgets for set design, props, and special effects. However, the original Star Trek series from the 1960s didn't have the resources to fill starships with buttons, knobs, and video displays.

According to Michael Okuda, original Star Trek art director Matt Jefferies had practically no budget. "He had to invent an inexpensive, but believable solution," he told Ars. "The spacecraft of the day, such as the Gemini capsules, were jammed full of toggle switches and gauges. If he had had the money to buy those things, the Enterprise would have looked a lot like that."

Because Jefferies was forced by budget restraints to be creative, however, the original Enterprise bridge was relatively sparse and simplistic. "Because he did such a brilliant job visualizing it, I think the original Star Trek still holds up today reasonably well," Okuda said.

Similar budget constraints meant creative solutions were required for ST:TNG as well. "We had a much lower budget than the feature films did," Okuda told Ars. "So, for example, I looked at the production process of making a control panel, and I said, 'How can I make this as inexpensive as possible?' Having made those decisions, 'now what can I do to make it as futuristic as possible?'"

Example control panels designed by Michael Okuda.

What could be simpler to make than a flat surface with no knobs, buttons, switches, or other details? Okuda designed a user interface dominated large type and sweeping, curved rectangles. The style was first employed in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home for the Enterprise-A, and came to be referred to as "okudagrams." The graphics could be created on transparent colored sheets very cheaply, though as ST:TNG progressed, control panels increasingly used video panels or added post-production animations.

"The initial motivation for that was in fact cost," Okuda explained. "Doing it purely as a graphic was considerably less expensive than buying electronic components. But very quickly we began to realize—as we figured out how these things would work and how someone would operate them, people would come to me and say, 'What happens if I need to do this?' Perhaps it was some action I hadn't thought of, and we didn't have a specific control for that. And I realized the proper answer to that was, 'It's in the software.' All the things we needed could be software-definable."

What Okuda realized is that with physical hardware interfaces, each function has to be designed into the interface from the beginning. But by imagining that software could re-configure the interface as needed, the writers were able to imagine any function that needed to advance the plot, and the production artists could create a "software" interface to perform the specific action.

Since the props weren't real functioning devices, no real code needed to be written. "We were considerably freer to imagine, 'What if you do this? Or what if you just touched that and it changed into a helm panel?'" Okuda said.

Still, the design of the user interface on the various control panels was influenced by user experience considerations. "What I tried to do was create something that, at a distance, looked like it had a macro-level organization," Okuda told Ars, "and when you got closer, there appeared to be an additional overlay of organization on top of that. The viewer would imagine, looking at it, 'If I study this close enough, I could figure out how to fly a starship.'"

Lt. Uhura using an electronic clipboard on Star Trek.

Avid viewers may remember that officers on the original Star Trek took notes or signed off on orders using what were referred to as "electronic clipboards." These rather bulky-looking (by today's standards) boxes had a sloped top with a large area for writing with an attached stylus, as well as a few light-up buttons. Lt. Uhura often used one in her role as communications officer.

For ST:TNG and beyond, Starfleet used touchscreen PADDs. The thin, handheld devices used the same interface as the control panels and computers on the Enterprise-D. "The idea was that we wanted to make them sleeker, slimmer, and way more advanced than the electronic clipboards were on the original series," Okuda said.

But PADDs were much more powerful than electronic note pads. "We realized that with the networking capabilities we had postulated for the ship, and given the [hypothetical] flexibility of the software, you should be able to fly the ship from the PADD," Okuda said.

Star Trek dreams

A PADD design used in ST:TNG.

Like the PADD, Apple's iPad and other iOS devices are designed largely around the idea that the software defines how the device can be used. "Nothing compares to the almost alive interface of the iPad," Doug Drexler told Ars. An ardent reader of science fiction from the age of 10, the iPad's touch interface was something he had long expected. "I think my attitude was, 'It's about time!'," he said.

"I think that anything that has no apparent mechanism yet delivers a big punch is either futuristic or, if you are from the Middle Ages, magic," Drexler explained. "Advanced alien devices on the original Trek series often had no discernible mechanism. So touch interfaces seem like magic. It's also slightly eerie, as you have the sensation that this thing is aware of you."

Even Okuda was impressed with how natural and fluid the interface of the iPad feels in use. Actions that involved complex post-production effects on a PADD actually seem easy on an iPad, he said. "There are a lot of things that are very easy to do in a prop, but actually very difficult to do in reality," he told Ars. "For example, pinch to zoom—that was relatively difficult to do even as a visual effect. It's implemented brilliantly on the iPad and the iPhone."

Drexler said that to him, the iPad is "eerily similar" to the PADDs used in Star Trek. "We always felt that the classic Okuda T-bar graphic was malleable, and that you could stretch and rearrange it to suit your task, just like the iPad," he said. "The PADD never had a keyboard as part of its casing, just like the iPad. Its geometry is almost exactly the same—the corner radius, the thickness, and overall rectangular shape."

"It's uncanny to have a PADD that really works," Drexler said, unlike the non-functional props made for the TV series and later films. "The iPad is the true Star Trek dream," Drexler told Ars.

This is a fun article! One aspect of the PADDs that is rather quaint is the apparent lack of WiFI. Whenever Riker needs to give Picard a report, he has to physically hand Picard a PADD. That certainly works better dramatically than having Picard press the Refresh icon on his PADD, but it makes the show look old-fashioned.

Generally speaking, when someone compares the iPad to Star Trek tablets makes his ignorance crystal clear for everyone to see. Plenty of other tablets have been released before the iPad. All of them have more functionality than the horrible Apple product.

Yep, the iPad nothing more than a piece of crap.==============================================================================================[MODERATION]

No trolling. Don't make posts that are inflammatory just to get people riled up. Substance is a key to not being labeled a troll, but substance alone cannot prevent you from being considered a troll. Substance with a dash of personal attacks will get you labeled as a troll.

Your post has little, to no substance. Take the time to substantiate your statements, or don't bother posting. Breezing in to post that the iPad is a piece of crap is a troll plain & simple.

Generally speaking, when someone compares the iPad to Star Trek tablets makes his ignorance crystal clear for everyone to see. Plenty of other tablets have been released before the iPad. All of them have more functionality than the horrible Apple product.

Yep, the iPad nothing more than a piece of crap.

They both use touch and have a similar form factor, thats the takeaway from the article. Win phone 7 probably has the most LCARS looking UI right now, with all the high contrast, flat squares and heavy on typography.

Generally speaking, when someone compares the iPad to Star Trek tablets makes his ignorance crystal clear for everyone to see. Plenty of other tablets have been released before the iPad. All of them have more functionality than the horrible Apple product.

Yep, the iPad nothing more than a piece of crap.

And yet none of them have had the same sort of touch focused interface seen on Star Trek.

Are people in Star Trek tapping furiously away with a little pen trying to hit a tiny button, or swiping/touching/generally using it intuitively?

I enjoyed the article. It was a fun read on the history of Star Trek and technology, and I'm pretty sure a whole lot of people have drawn the association between the iPad and the PADDs on Star Trek. Go troll elsewhere.

This is a fun article! One aspect of the PADDs that is rather quaint is the apparent lack of WiFI. Whenever Riker needs to give Picard a report, he has to physically hand Picard a PADD. That certainly works better dramatically than having Picard press the Refresh icon on his PADD, but it makes the show look old-fashioned.

I'll contend that, even with WiFi and simple data sharing, if you're in the same room with someone, it's still easier just to hand off the device to someone else than to have to dig through menus to change files (or send files, or whatever).

Plus, there seems to be something inherent in human nature that likes the tactile experience of physically sharing something with another person... just emailing a file or pointing someone to a website doesn't seem to have the same impact. That's what's cool about the iPad-- it gives my electronic data more of a tangible, physical "presence" than looking at a computer monitor or even a laptop monitor does.

Generally speaking, when someone compares the iPad to Star Trek tablets makes his ignorance crystal clear for everyone to see. Plenty of other tablets have been released before the iPad. All of them have more functionality than the horrible Apple product.

Yep, the iPad nothing more than a piece of crap.

More functionality does not equate to usefulness. You make yourself sound ignorant when you fail to recognise that, to date, the iPad is the most user-friendly and useful tablet device for the general user.

The real interesting technology that is seeing the light of day isn't a simple communication device but rather the Borg. A lot of advancements have been taking place over the past couple of years in biological interface devices. For example:

There are several devices that tap right into the human nervous system for controlling various electronic devices. Other cybernetic devices are common place. Dick Cheney has no pulse due to his ventricular assist device that was implanted in him.

Really the most efficient form of human interface is one that is linked to thought directly. The next logical step would be a device to let people communicate directly by thought. Though this is more Ghost In The Shell than Star Trek.

PADDs do have wireless - at least according to the TNG technical manual, which talks about how they not only communicate wirelessly with the ship's computer, but also recharge wirelessly whenever they're on board the ship or starbase (or, presumably, in people's homes). The same goes for their other devices, which is why nobody bothers to check the charge on their communicator before beaming down to an uncivilised planet - it'll always be full.

So we need that tech. Fortunately, there are people working on it. Hurrah!

Really the most efficient form of human interface is one that is linked to thought directly. The next logical step would be a device to let people communicate directly by thought. Though this is more Ghost In The Shell than Star Trek.

Already invented telepathy, it's called writing. You scribble thoughts down on a piece of bark, and later someone else reads them. Thought transmitted.

"Direct" thought communication doesn't really make any sense because you need some layer of abstraction (language) that is mutually understood by everyone involved.

Everybody knows that Star Trek technology is Java++ and Python based. It's all open source. Duh.

Nobody is going to go around tossing a expensive iPad around... but a 150 dollar Android tablet from K-Mart... sure. Nobody gives a shit. It's just a terminal to the ship's online services, after all.

I should imagine even Android would be terribly overpowered and unnecessary. More efficient would be just let the ships computer render the interface and broadcast whatever interface pushing new contexts as required the situation required. All the device would do is charge via ambient RF, play encrypted video of interface and return multi-touch gestures to the host. I seem to recall them taking more rugged devices on away missions.

Client side software makes it vulnerable to hardware hacking and you wouldn't want to keep ship critical information on a portable device to start with.

Coincidentally I watched the Deep Space 9 episode tonight ("Image in the Sand") which had the touch pad with an image of a woman's face. As I was watching the episode and Captain Sisko was dragging images on the touch screen, I thought of the iPad.

Star Trek had slate device props which involved a screen without a keyboard and a touch interface. There are very few Windows slate devices designed for touch. And the slate devices for the Android or Web OS are not out yet. So, it is natural that the designers of the Star Trek PADD would be looking to the iPad for a comparison.

The analogy falls down if you imagine Pickard being told that he is holding it wrong or his communicator had to have a rubber bumper on it. Can you imagine right in the middle of some conflict him losing all signal due to him shorting out the antenna on the case. What an episode that would have made.

The analogy falls down if you imagine Pickard being told that he is holding it wrong or his communicator had to have a rubber bumper on it. Can you imagine right in the middle of some conflict him losing all signal due to him shorting out the antenna on the case. What an episode that would have made.

Yeah, because that minor issue isn't going to be fixed next year (if not before).

This article has a weird slant to it. So the writer asked the Star Trek designers how cool it is their PADD designs are "eerily" similar to the iPad, instead of the other way around? For instance, the guy who designed the Palm Pilot said the Star Trek tricorder inspired him. Same deal with many scientists, teachers, and NASA engineers who said their nerdy fascination with sci-fi as children inspired them to become real life scientists and tech designers. It makes no sense for the Star Trek designers to be in awe when it was the iPad designers who riffed off science fiction first. Chronologically and sociologically this makes the most sense, unless there's a time portal I'm unaware of.

I expect Ars writers to have their bias, but damn. It's the other way around. The other way.

Two words to explain why the PADDs or iPad are not advances in technology: haptic feedback

Haptic feedback is great when it actually provides USEFUL feedback. Like, say, a haptic feedback loop on a fly-by-wire fighter control stick that tells you when you're reaching the edge of the envelope.

But on an iPad haptic feedback is generally less than useful. Take typing. The visual changes and the "click" sound is more than enough feedback for each and every keystroke. One does not need the thing buzzing, vibrating, and generally flopping around on the table, effectively shouting, "HEY! YOU TYPED A KEY! AND ANOTHER KEY! AND ANOTHER ONE! AND ANOTHER....".

I should imagine even Android would be terribly overpowered and unnecessary. More efficient would be just let the ships computer render the interface and broadcast whatever interface pushing new contexts as required the situation required. All the device would do is charge via ambient RF, play encrypted video of interface and return multi-touch gestures to the host. I seem to recall them taking more rugged devices on away missions.

Client side software makes it vulnerable to hardware hacking and you wouldn't want to keep ship critical information on a portable device to start with.

Forgive me, but except for a couple of paragraphs, this article sounds like it was written for an Apple advertorial in a glossy magazine. It's still a cool article just because of the presence of the ST design team, but they get a bit gushy on the iPad.

I enjoyed the article. It was a fun read on the history of Star Trek and technology, and I'm pretty sure a whole lot of people have drawn the association between the iPad and the PADDs on Star Trek. Go troll elsewhere.

I liked the article but i think the designers need to be less modest, it is clear to me that the ipad design team spent way too long watching star trek TNG and that the IPAd was based on the design and functionality of the PADD, yes it is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.

BTW all those people slagging off apple control did you ever see what happened when unknown elements entered the computer system. and when did you see Picard and go with a choice on anything let alone the option to use open source software.